Liberals will have followed the papal Conclave with mixed feelings. Liberalism was forged in opposition to state power and state churches, their enforced orthodoxy and suppression of dissent. On the European continent that gave early Liberalism a strong anti-Catholic tinge, which hasn’t entirely disappeared. In England and Wales the alliance between Whigs and nonconformists became central to the 19th century Liberal Party, with campaigns to disestablish the Anglican church and to remove its control over schools and universities. The high point of nonconformist influence in the party was between the 1880s and the first world war. In recent decades, some active Liberal Democrats have become hostile to faith and religion as such – in some cases intolerant of those in the party who hold to a faith and belong to a church.
I grew up as a Protestant Anglican. I learned what I now understand as social liberalism from the sermons of Canon Marriott, preaching the ‘social gospel’ in Westminster Abbey (putting down my Biggles book, which choristers were allowed to take in to keep us quiet during sermons), I had instinctive anti-Catholic prejudices, probably from the English history I was taught and the children’s histories I read. I was shocked when, as a student, I first met an active Liberal who said he was also a Catholic. His name was Geoff Tordoff, and he later became a key player in holding the party together during the last years of Jeremy Thorpe’s leadership and the Lib-Lab pact. Then I worked throughout the 1966 election campaign for Pratap Chitnis, educated by the Jesuits and a practising Catholic, and learned to admire his intellectual as well as campaigning skills. My prejudices evaporated as I worked with a succession of liberal Catholics whose faith and values went together.
What Liberals (myself included) dislike about religion is the claim to certainty that fundamentalists assert, the hierarchical structure of the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and (often) Evangelical churches, and the corruption of authority when priests defend their institution instead of their faith. Popes 150 years ago condemned liberalism and the separation of church and state; the Church of England was a pillar of social order and Tory rule. As institutions, both have fallen a long way short of the faith they proclaim. Both these ‘establishment’ churches have struggled to adapt to open and democratic societies, and to the uncertainties of reasoned debate and honest doubt that such societies depend on. But both have adapted, to the point where right-wing media in the USA are bitterly criticising the new pope.
What we now witness in organised religions, in Hinduism and Judaism as well as Islam and Christianity, is a divide between those who have reconciled faith and liberalism and those who look back to the reactionary mixture of pre-modern authority and orthodoxy. ‘Christian nationalism’, as now preached and promoted in the USA, draws together Southern Baptists whose grandparents supported slavery and hard-line Catholics – many, like Vice-President Vance, converts – who are looking for a doctrine to impose. The divide within Judaism is as deep; the struggle within Islam, in Britain and elsewhere, is in some ways deeper. Pope Francis famously answered ‘Who am I to judge? when asked about gay priests, Pope Leo has made it clear that the church must stand with the poor – both anathema to the reactionaries of the right.
Some Liberals will reply that this isn’t enough, and that secularism is the only acceptable path. To which I answer: Liberalism is about toleration of difference, and that we should not attempt to impose a new orthodoxy in place of the old. Our secular society is also divided between libertarians who live for themselves and do not believe in society and those who do their best to hold to broader and more communal values. Name me an institution that has NOT fallen short of the values it attempts to follow, or a group or organization that is faultless. Liberals of all faiths and none need to work together against the world’s reactionaries and authoritarians of all faiths or none.
Some of the best Liberals I have worked with in half a century in the party have been ordained ministers; others have been the children of ministers. The Reverend John Nicholson worked for me in four election campaigns in Manchester and Yorkshire; I taught his son Chris to canvass, before he went on to lead Kingston Council. The first son of the manse I met as a student was David Steel. Methodist ministers and lay readers were among those I most respected and valued in decades of Yorkshire activity (hello Geoff Reid). I’ve met many leaders of local churches, Liberal activists or not, who run food banks, support refugees, raise funds for overseas development and host community hubs.
Yes, secular liberals are similarly working to build and support communities; these are like-minded people with similar values. Yes, we differ on some issues; but don’t forget what J.S.Mill said about tolerating and understanding differences in opinion. To borrow a phrase that Liberal Anglicans have used ever since the Whigs opposed strict tests for doctrinal conformity, 350 years ago, against Tories defending the imposition of orthodoxy and exclusion of dissenters: the Liberal Party should be a broad church, not a narrow sect.
* William Wallace is LibDem peer, a former vice-chair of the Federal Policy Committee and convenor of the party's 1997 manifesto team.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
A journey along the Welsh Border in 1963
Recipe for a real change of direction
Day 9304: So Farewell Then, Kier Starmer
Dennis
Chloe
Slamdac
Nonconformistradical
Mick Taylor
11 Comments
As Rachel Gilmour MP said recently, our mediaeval church buildings are in danger. Yet there is almost no public discourse about their plight. Many small village churches have congregations numbering less than 20 people who are expected to shoulder the whole burden of raising sometimes hundreds of thousand pounds to keep the building intact. This is not sustainable. There needs to be an urgent dialogue between government, local communities, and the Church of England to find a solution to an existential threat to our most important historic architectural heritage.
Fascinating post – thank you. And I write that as a daughter of the manse.
Excellent article. It is good to discuss such big-picture issues, as well as more immediate political topics.
“What we now witness in organised religions, in Hinduism and Judaism as well as Islam and Christianity, is a divide between those who have reconciled faith and liberalism and those who look back to the reactionary mixture of pre-modern authority and orthodoxy.”
I agree.
There are some Muslims (the followers of ISIS being the most obvious example) whose views represent an immediate threat to other Muslims as well as non-Muslims. There are also many who, while not wanting immediate violence, hold views that are incompatible with pluralistic societies.
Conversely there are also vast numbers of Muslims who make exemplary members of liberal democracies.
Using the societal power analysis of Michael Hudson, there are three basic power groups in society:
1) The government
2) The rich/dominant/influential
3) The rest of us
Good governments control the power of group 2 so that group 3 are treated fairly.
Poor to bad governments collude with group 2 to have a combined parasitic relationship with group 3.
Might “state power” be differentiated into different types?
1) A restraint/corrective power to manage the powerful, dominant group(s) in society
2) A selfish to itself dominating group
3) A group colluding with 2 to exploit 3
Opposition to poor to bad government is wise.
Might opposition to government which works for societal equity and socio-economic cohesion be unwise?
There is a difference between disliking the power and control often wielded by religious institutions and disliking religion itself. I don’t tend to find Liberals routinely dislike religion and actually some of the most religious people I know are Liberals. We need to remember there is a difference.
Thank you, William.
I wrote much the same in my recent essay in the recent Mill Institute book. Also very much with Geoff in mind.
William – thank you for a very thoughtful and illuminating article. I think you hit many nails on the head, especially when you mentioned the divide in all religions and sects between those who look back to the reactionary mixture of pre-modern orthodoxy and authority, and those who set out to reconcile their faith and their liberal principles (the latter is not always easy, of course).
I have a question. What is the relationship between liberalism and social democracy, the twin roots of our party? Some form of social justice ought to be important to all people of religion, though it is certainly often not practised by them. Yet it does worry me that liberalism seems to have been the starting point of some politics which seem to have travelled very far from social justice – think of Liz Truss, perhaps Paul Marshall, and the whole libertarian movement. Would you say that liberalism is possible without a commitment to social justice? I hope not! Perhaps too weighty a question for a reply here but a subject for one of your future articles? I would value your thoughts.
On a small point of fact, I understand that when Pope Francis said “who am I to judge?” he was not referring to gay priests but to all gay people.
John: Sorry, I’ve only just seen your comment. The divide between libertarians/economic liberals and social liberals is between those who consider inequality and social justice to be important and those who believe in individualism. Mill was clearly a social liberal; and others have claimed him as a social democrat or liberal socialist. That’s the path the ‘new’ Liberal took in the 1900s, too, and almost all political liberal;s have followed since (with some embarrassing exceptions).
Brilliant summary of faith and liberalism; as a ‘progressive Christian’ I agree with all of it. The late Jonathan Sacks, as leader of the Orthodox Jews in the UK, wrote 2 useful books that are relevant to this. In the one entitled “The Home We Build Together” he says we do not want a Theocracy because Religion in power always oppresses people. In the other “The Dignity of Difference” he sets out theological reasons why we must accept differences; true faith essentially involves acceptance of people whose ideals and beliefs are different from ours. In the latter he makes a statement that the hurt felt by Jews can never be used to hate Palestinians for that will not bring peace to Israel.
William – many thanks for that. I shall find out about Mill. If I remember right he was voted the most influential liberal at a party conference several years back.
Perhaps the broad church you refer to could also include those who ascribe to no religion but to the immense power of every human being. If the world is to move forward it must embrace the discoveries of quantum physics that point to a universal energy from which all form comes. Most people understand that there is a force beyond our personal minds that we can call on in times of crisis. It is not a religion but a description of how our minds work and how to make the most of our time in that form by working with it rather than against it.